As Mexican President Felipe Calderon prepares to visit the U.S. on March 3rd to meet with U.S. President Barack Obama, his administration announces that a main topic of their discussion will be the bilateral issue the two leaders face in their struggle against organized crime and drug trafficking. Since 2006, the ongoing war against drug cartels has cost the lives of over 35,000 people and remains a major security issue of both administrations.

Not only are Mexican drug organizations located in over 230 U.S. cities and supply U.S. consumers of the cocaine industry, but violence has escalated, as an American Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent was killed in Northern Mexico less than two weeks ago. Sadly, it was not the first time that American officials have been struck by violence linked to drug trafficking. If not now more than ever, the United State’s role in providing aid for Mexico in the fight against drug cartels is essential to the security of not only Mexico but the U.S. as well.

Under the Bush Administration in 2008, the U.S. took a decisive step toward addressing the problem with the establishment of the Merida Initiative, which allocated $1.4 billion in aid programs for equipment, training and intelligence to target the drug cartels and increase security. But continued funding for the now-expired program looks grim as the Obama administration seeks to cut anti-drug assistance by 17.6 percent as outlined in the Fiscal Year 2012 Drug Control Budget. While it is clear that the U.S. must cut federal spending to close the budget deficit, security should not fall victim to budgetary cuts. Providing Mexico with the resources to combat the terrorizing violence that has pervaded both countries is essential to increasing security and decreasing violence. If nothing else, President Calderon’s visit to the U.S. points to the gravity of an issue that surely transcends borders and requires a continued commitment to security. It therefore must remain one aspect of the budget that we should not be willing to cut.

Carly Agresti is a second-year undergraduate student at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. She is also the co-founder of The Georgetown Forum.

According to Montesquieu division of powers is required to have a Republic.[1] According to Alexis de Tocqueville a free press is needed to have a Republic.[2] From the perspective of these two French political thinkers of the XVIII and IXX Century accordingly, today’s Ecuador is increasingly far from being a Republic. In fact President Rafael Correa is promoting a referendum, which jeopardizes these two Republic essential attributes: division of power and free press.

Among other political issues, the referendum attempts to enable the President, —Executive Power— the Assembly (Congress) —Legislative Power whose majority supports the regime—, and the Transparency and Social Control Role —a locally invented branch of the government — to decide on the Judicial Power. In other words, the three former powers are going to integrate the Council responsible of selecting the judges that apply the law ruling the whole nation. As a result, the Judicial Power will be subordinated to the officialist party, control will be centralized, whilst democracy will be wisely disguised with a ballot box.

Also, through the referendum the government seeks to legitimate the creation of a Regulation Council in order to avoid media abuse.[3] The President recently described as “corruption” the manipulation of journalists’ power to communicate when opposing to the referendum that the officialism is carrying on.[4]

We launched the Hispanic Blog Network to give a voice to the Hispanic community. Here we will discuss the latest news and trends in business, politics, lifestyle, etc. If you would like to contribute feel free to apply at our Contact page.